Should we change "I can" into "I can't"? (towards stuttering remission)

Should we change "I can" into "I can't"? (towards stuttering remission) My personal thoughts: I think, people who stutter (PWS) may often want to eliminate the stop sign (for example, anticipatory fear), resulting in feeling more concerned about speaking. Many PWS might think: "*When we feel we will stutter, it's not just an illusion*." → I think both yes and no. We should distinguish two different levels: (a) Intrusive thoughts/feelings LEVEL — anticipatory fear about speaking or about listeners’ responses. Sometimes we become so caught up in the stutter experience and in the identity of ourselves as “a person who stutters” that we enter a trance-like state. This can produce a subjective loss of control and the sense that we are frozen, even when there will be no true physiological freeze response. These intrusive triggers occur at a different domain and do not necessarily activate the approach–avoidance conflict, and therefore do not necessarily lead to overt stuttering. (b) A separate domain: the moment we realize (or somehow sense) that the approach–avoidance conflict has been triggered. In other words, the basal ganglia shift into an inhibitory state rather than a “go” or ready state. Often it is the person’s current behavior — an error-avoidance response — that drives this inhibitory shift. Whereas most people who stutter frequently attribute the effect to anticipatory fear or the intrusive stimulus, but that is not the same mechanism - they operate on a different domain Conclusion So I suggest everyone learn to distinguish between (a) intrusive anticipatory/emotion-level triggers and (b) the actual activation of the approach–avoidance/inhibitory state. In my own opinion: emotions, thoughts or feelings do not give any info whether the approach-avoidance confllict has been triggered. They are simply considered intrusive stimuli/triggers IMO. In contrast, I think we are able to know whether the approach-avoidance conflict has been triggered: (1) If we continue speaking anyway and end up blocking (2) Prior to stuttering, if we are at that moment (of execution) excessively avoiding the anticipatory fear (intrusive triggers) specifically to execute speech *(without stopping oneself from excessive error-avoidance to execute the speech plan)* \~\~ Your thoughts? Do you have other ideas for how we are able to notice an actual **approach-avoidance** conflict? \~\~ Many PWS might think: "*If we feel we can't, then probably we can't*" I think: yes and no, I think if it's (A), then no. If it's (B) in which we recognize we are currently doing the unhelpful behavior "excessive error-avoidance" to execute speech (without stopping our behavior), then yes I would agree that we can't. \--> Of course, the opposite is also true, we don't need to eliminate or change the thought "I can't" into "I can" - in order to execute the speech plan. Otherwise exactly that would likely be considered an illusion \~\~ https://preview.redd.it/hfq6dys8fpuf1.jpg?width=612&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f36a5736393631d016bab6c5196a99b9d4949201 The [attached image ](https://i.imgur.com/3LjwiFE.jpeg)illustrates the mental tug-of-war between “I can” and “I can’t.” If you fail to convince yourself with an internal “I can’t,” then—if you continue speaking—you may or may not stutter. If, instead, we succeed in letting the subconscious accept “We CAN,” meaning that we have reduced avoidance of the intrusive stimuli enough that the speech plan is allowed to be executed. Conclusion So by shifting the internal script from “I can’t” to “I can” (i.e., reducing the perceived error/threat), the subconscious is more likely to permit execution of the speech plan. In other words: engaging in such error-avoidance response and you enable controlled fluency over subconscious fluency. This is just my own take on it \~\~ Your thoughts?